Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-30-Speech-4-020"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-03-30"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:The “Echelon” system2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000330.2.4-020"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-03-30-Speech-4-0212
lpv:speaker	lp:Paul A.A.J.G. Lannoye2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Ecolo (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Conference of Presidents (1999-07-20--2002-01-07)3 chair; G/EFA (1999-07-20--2002-01-07)3 substitute; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (1999-09-14--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on Development and Cooperation (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"First I would like to thank the President of the Council for his statement that the system we are debating is unacceptable in principle. That is something, at least. Having said that, I was expecting the Council to give us some details about the problem we are trying to deal with today. I have to say I am disappointed. To use a sporting metaphor, the representatives of the Council and the Commission have been doing what I call the fencing side-step. It is very effective in fencing, but I dislike it in politics. I have no regrets whatsoever about having taken the initiative, with my group, in calling for a parliamentary committee of inquiry into this matter. I think the stature of the European Parliament will be enhanced by adopting such an initiative and I hope the whole of Parliament will support that position. I also want to point out that while speeches on the principle are of course interesting, we have to have the courage to talk about the facts. Eighteen months ago, during a debate in this same Parliament, when Mr Bangemann was the Commissioner responsible, he said, in answer to a number of questions from Members, that if the system existed it would represent a serious problem for human rights and the operation of the European Union. We have since discovered that this system does exist, but we do not know exactly how it works. There is good reason to believe that a European Union Member State – the United Kingdom, to make no bones about it – is collaborating in the system. I expected the Council Presidency to make a statement about that. Is the British Government being open about it? Is it collaborating in the system or not? I think we have a right to know. The Commission is responsible for ensuring that Community law is observed. We have good reason to believe that Community law is being flouted in this case. Directives are obviously fine if they are applied, but what use are they if there is clearly technology available for by-passing them? Especially when we know that certain Member States are probably collaborating in order to by-pass them. I am really very worried. If this Parliament seeks to represent the people of Europe, it really must clarify this situation. We will not be doing that if we routinely wait for initiatives from the Council and the Commission. I want to remind the House that we passed a resolution eighteen months ago calling for a proper open debate on this type of monitoring technology. In view of what I have just heard, there is no genuinely open debate. Secondly, we said effective economic protection systems and encryption must be adopted. Now we are told the same thing all over again, eighteen months later. Are we going to pass another resolution in Strasbourg repeating the 1998 resolution? I honestly believe that it is now too late for that. Therefore, Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we must move into a higher gear and it is this Parliament’s duty, as the third institution of the Union, to spearhead the attack."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph